Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog070 e e Marina Scopine Meetine /)~ A I-or 10/12/01 2:00 p.m. ~r BayClub, Port Ludlow Josh Peters, JCDCD directed the community meeting. Began with a background of the Marina Expansion project, also explained procedure for the application process. Lynn Keenan and Shannon Kinsella (Reid Middleton) described project modifications from original design and proposed changes. Paul Taylor-Smith asked if the new docks would extend in front of residential properties. (Marina Drawing reviewed) D.A. Routt expressed concern regarding boat traffic for residential properties. Asked if the reason the expansion was moving westward in lieu of southward a financial consideration? Cheaper? Shannon agreed, yes, southward expansion would be more expensive, westward or lateral expansion is more cost effective, and also more efficient. Funke asked if the Bay is regulated by DNR or the county. Jeff Schreck, DNR stated the DNR is responsible for overseeing the beds. Funke asked if residents' rights end at the property line. Schreck answered affrrmatively, but residents do have rights to ingress and egress. Smith asked if there is a limit to the capacity the Marina can impose on the Bay. Josh Peters stated that this will be determined through the application review process. Smith questioned whether one landowner can utilize the entire bay - making it difficult for other residents to get permits. Peters stated it is very difficult at this time to get any permits at all due to the Shorelines Act; but concentrating in one area is more desirable. Routt stated he felt the Developer has decided to expand without regard to the residents' riporian rights (view and access). Peters stated the residents' rights will be taken into consideration upon review. Routt questioned the shaded area on the original expansion plan. Shannon explained studies have shown that large square footages over eelgrass beds could affect sea life. Bob Stewart (Pentec Fish Biologist) explained that deeper water shading (40 ft) not as much of a problem because there is no eelgrass at that depth. Funke commented the residents are looking for alternatives to losing water frontage. Funke asked if all agencies needed to sign off in order to get an approval for an application. # LOG ITEIVI '70 ( of .'7 1 n""Qe e e Peters/Schreck stated that most agencies will not approve if another agency has disapproved. Most agencies also have appeal processes. Routt asked if the answer would be approve/disapprove or could be approved at smaller scale. Peters stated plan could be modified through process review. Funke asked how the Resort expansion will impact the Marina area, and how will this be addressed. Mark Dorsey (PLA) explained that the Developer will be doing an SEIS for the entire Resort area. This Marina portion was started first because there is a longer review period due to all the agencies involved. It will all be consolidated into one complete SEIS. Peters stated that these projects will not be isolated from each other, will be considered together. Routt asked why 100 slips, why not fewer. Stated there is not that many names on the waiting list. Greg McCarry (PLA) stated that the 1993 EIS contemplated this expansion. There is a demand for additional slips, and with a remaining 450 lots to build, will bring additional boaters to Port Ludlow. Funke asked if there were regulations protecting property owners for this type of project. Feels the expansion will devalue his property. Peters stated that the permit could not be disapproved due to aesthetic reasons. COMMENT PERIOD DR4Fr D.A. Routt 87 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. Lack of effort from the Marina staff to enforce pumpout policy. New policy which requires liveaboards to pumpout every 2 weeks is not enforced. 2. Fish habitat concerns. Salmon are starting to come back into the bay. Expansion could have adverse impact. 3. 100 slips are too many. How many will be liveaboards? Lack of enforcement will harm environment. Agencies should require the Developer to provide better pumpout procedures. 4. When we purchased the property, the sales agent never mentioned the expansion. Wondering how the Developer could mitigate loss in property value. Paul Taylor Smith 63 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. The Developer needs to explore expansion possibilities south of the Marina in lieu of west to secure sea life habitat and boat traffic for adjacent lotowners. 2. We purchased water view property, not Marina view property. We feel this project will cause a loss of value for our property. 3. We were never contacted by the Developer to address issues that were previously submitted. LOG rn:IVI it ;0 Pege 2 of__~ .. e e Bill Funke 75 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. Want to be sure the Scott letter has been presented and made part ofthe record. 2. We have lost 40' of our bank. Concerned the increased Marina traffic will cause further erosion. D.A. Routt 87 Scott Court Port Ludlow 1. Diesel smell is strong. Concern the odor will increase with expansion. Jeff Schreck DNR 1. We require the Marina to be good environmental stewards. If the expansion is approved, will require additional pumpouts. 2. DNR does not allow liveaboards. Funke asked if there were enforcements for liveaboards? Schreck stated that individuals needed to report it to his supervisor. DR4f:r Herman Voss 60A Fairway Lane Port Ludlow 1. I question the difference between a view of the Marina vs. a view of a private dock. 2. I am in favor of Marina expansion, feel there is a need for 100 additional slips. End of Comment Period Josh Peters stated that he will be open to receiving questions/comments/concerns regarding the Marina Expansion project until November 2nd. Copies of the completed scoping document will be available. Questions followed regarding procedures for decision, and appeal process. Routt asked if Pentec was hired by the Developer, if it was possible to get a private study. Stewart replied yes, but backlog is approximately 2 years at this time. Peters responded that if the decision is in question at all, certainly entitled to have private studies done. Funke stated that it seemed apparent that all impacts were going to be considered except the individual property owners' rights. Feels his property will be devalued. Greg McCarry stated that the plans for the expansion were stated in the 1993 EIS document. Josh stated that interested parties could contact Jerry Smith at JCDCD for information contained in the EIS. End of meeting, 3:50 p.m. lOG ITEivJ , 7() J ~qe ot.3?